Quality of interaction between clinicians and artificial intelligence systems. A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Artificial intelligence (AI) has the potential to improve healthcare quality when thoughtfully integrated into clinical practice. Current evaluations of AI solutions tend to focus solely on model performance. There is a critical knowledge gap in the assessment of AI-clinician interactions. We systematically reviewed existing literature to identify interaction traits that can be used to assess the quality of AI-clinician interactions. Methods: We performed a systematic review of published studies to June 2022 that reported elements of interactions that impacted the relationship between clinicians and AI-enabled clinical decision support systems. Due to study heterogeneity, we conducted a narrative synthesis of the different interaction traits identified from this review. Two study authors categorised the AI-clinician interaction traits based on their shared constructs independently. After the independent categorisation, both authors engaged in a discussion to finalise the categories. Results: From 34 included studies, we identified 210 interaction traits. The most common interaction traits included usefulness, ease of use, trust, satisfaction, willingness to use and usability. After removing duplicate or redundant traits, 90 unique interaction traits were identified. Unique interaction traits were then classified into seven categories: usability and user experience, system performance, clinician trust and acceptance, impact on patient care, communication, ethical and professional concerns, and clinician engagement and workflow. Discussion: We identified seven categories of interaction traits between clinicians and AI systems. The proposed categories may serve as a foundation for a framework assessing the quality of AI-clinician interactions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.214 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".